[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 16:36:00 -0700
From: Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@...il.com>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Jumbo patch licensing
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 6:54 AM, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 09:29:51AM -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>> I work with the Fedora Project, and while I was going to package up
>> JtR for EPEL, there was some mention of possible problems with the
>> licensing of the patches in the Jumbo patch. While the main set of
>> code was GPL, some of the patches had been done before the code switch
>> and may not have been re-licensed or wanted to be re-licensed.
>
> More specifically, some old versions of JtR did not explicitly specify
> a license (my fault), so it was not clear what license applied to some
> code contributions made against those versions. This has been mostly
> dealt with by a Debian package maintainer approaching the contributors
> in early 2009. What remains to be done is updating the corresponding
> source files with explicit license notices according to the contributors'
> replies on the pkg-john-devel mailing list. The list archives are
> linked from:
>
> http://openwall.info/wiki/john/licensing
>
>> Someone
>> mentioned to me on IRC that this had been mentioned on the list as
>> something to be worked on the future (maybe for 1.8) or so.
>
> The topic was brought up in here on some occasions, but there were no
> specific plans like working on this for or after 1.8. You're free to
> work on this at any time. ;-)
Cool. You go over below what I need to do so that will be my project next week.
>> I was
>> wondering what the status of this was or if there was anything I could
>> help with.
>
> Please see above. Perhaps you could go over the pkg-john-devel postings
> and introduce the proper comments (copyright and licensing statements
> and links to the postings) into the latest revision of the jumbo patch,
> then submit your changes as a patch. Also, identify any issues that
> might remain - e.g., source files the license for which is not clear.
I will start off with seeing what files are not lableled with licenses
and go from there.
> Maybe the Debian package already contains this info (as a patch or
> otherwise)? This is worth checking.
Ok cool. I will grab theirs and see what they have done... it is
always good for distributions to be able to work together versus
against each other.
> Thanks!
>
> Alexander
>
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp. Or what's a heaven for?
-- Robert Browning
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
